Search

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can cause serious health problems, as shown in studies about drug-related hospitalizations. To build knowledge of and raise awareness about ADRs among healthcare professionals, more education in the field of ADRs and pharmacovigilance (PV) is needed. No standard exists for teaching PV at universities for medical, pharmacy, dentistry and nursing students, so a core curriculum needs to be developed to teach important aspects of PV to students. In September 2016, a stakeholders' meeting was initiated on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO) and organized by the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. This meeting addressed and agreed on the PV competencies students need to develop and what key aspects of the subject should be taught. Five key aspects were identified: understanding the importance of PV in the context of pharmacotherapy, and preventing, recognizing, managing and reporting ADRs. Since time and resources for PV education are limited, elements of the WHO PV core curriculum for university teaching were designed to be integrated into existing courses but can be used as a stand-alone programme. The basis of and outline for the WHO PV core curriculum for university teaching are addressed in this paper. It is expected that PV competencies for students are vital for their contribution to safe use of medicines in the future. In addition, this article aims to stimulate discussion on this subject and promote collaboration between universities, national PV centres and other stakeholders to integrate key aspects of PV in their educational programmes.

Aims: To explore if there is a difference between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in time to reporting drug-adverse drug reaction (ADR) associations that led to drug safety signals., Methods: This was a retrospective comparison of time to reporting selected drug-ADR associations which led to drug safety signals between patients and HCPs. ADR reports were selected from the World Health Organization Global database of individual case safety reports, VigiBase. Reports were selected based on drug-ADR associations of actual drug safety signals. Primary outcome was the difference in time to reporting between patients and HCPs. The date of the first report for each individual signal was used as time zero. The difference in time between the date of the reports and time zero was calculated. Statistical differences in timing were analysed on the corresponding survival curves using a Mann-Whitney U test., Results: In total, 2822 reports were included, of which 52.7% were patient reports, with a median of 25% for all included signals. For all signals, median time to signal detection was 10.4 years. Overall, HCPs reported earlier than patients: median 7.0 vs. 8.3 years (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Patients contributed a large proportion of reports on drug-ADR pairs that eventually became signals. HCPs reported 1.3 year earlier than patients. These findings strengthen the evidence on the value of patient reporting in signal detection and highlight an opportunity to encourage patients to report suspected ADRs even earlier in the future., (© 2018 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.)

Introduction: Clinical information is needed to assess the causal relationship between a drug and an adverse drug reaction (ADR) in a reliable way. Little is known about the level of relevant clinical information about the ADRs reported by patients., Objective: The aim was to determine to what extent patients report relevant clinical information about an ADR compared with their healthcare professional., Methods: A retrospective analysis of all ADR reports on the same case, i.e., cases with a report from both the patient and the patient's healthcare professional, selected from the database of the Dutch Pharmacovigilance Center Lareb, was conducted. The extent to which relevant clinical information was reported was assessed by trained pharmacovigilance assessors, using a structured tool. The following four domains were assessed: ADR, chronology, suspected drug, and patient characteristics. For each domain, the proportion of reported information in relation to information deemed relevant was calculated. An average score of all relevant domains was determined and categorized as poorly (≤45%), moderately (from 46 to 74%) or well (≥75%) reported. Data were analyzed using a paired sample t test and Wilcoxon signed rank test., Results: A total of 197 cases were included. In 107 cases (54.3%), patients and healthcare professionals reported a similar level of clinical information. Statistical analysis demonstrated no overall differences between the groups (p = 0.126)., Conclusions: In a unique study of cases of ADRs reported by patients and healthcare professionals, we found that patients report clinical information at a similar level as their healthcare professional. For an optimal pharmacovigilance, both healthcare professionals and patient should be encouraged to report.

Purpose: This study aims to explore the differences in reported information between adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports of patient and healthcare professionals (HCPs), and, in addition, to explore possible correlation between the reported elements of information., Methods: This retrospective study compared the reported information between 200 ADR reports of patients and HCPs. Reports were rendered anonymous and scored for the presence or absence of predefined elements of information. These elements can be objective (e.g. start date of the ADR) or subjective (e.g. the impact or severity of the ADR). A two-sided Pearson's Chi-square test was used to detect statistically significant differences in the reported information. A Bonferroni correction was used to correct for multiple comparisons. Correlation between the elements of information was explored using categorical principal components analysis (CATPCA)., Results: Overall, HCPs had a higher score for the presence of objective and patients for subjective elements of information. Elements that were statistically significant more often reported by patients are the impact of the ADR and the patient's weight and height. HCPs statistically significant more often reported the medical history and the route of administration of the drug. CATPCA showed four clusters of elements of information that have fair correlation., Conclusions: This study demonstrates the differences in reported information between ADR reports of patients and HCPs. Patient reports are more focused on patient-related information and the impact of the reported ADRs, whereas reports from HCPs provide more clinically related information., (Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)